222
222
331
332
199.
to give statements of witnesses without any depositions and we are now
facing another application for amenduent. No good reason has been given. Associate myself with Mr. Hampton.
Mr. Sceats: Reason for application to amend previously was Crowm could not address Your Honour reason as to why names added were persons
designated as persons unknown. I replied that afternoon without
indictment rules available. Your Honour has ruled that Crown has
not given any other reason than Rule 4. It is impracticable to
give full names of co-conspirators however remote case against 2 accused. Test is not whether Crown gives identity of co-conspirators but whether it is practicable in a trial of persons who are co-conspirators at law. On that basis Crown has not satisfied Your Honour for designating
these persons as "persons unknown". Your Honour held defect could be
rectified by amendment.
Impractical to name peripheral characters I thought it proper
to mention persons are at par with these persons when charge was amended.
Even if we were to endeavour to name everyone on a summary basis or otherwise
it would not assist prosecution or defence there would still be large
numbers of persons involved whose participation are unknown but who must
be involved. Person unknown provided for in Rule 4 of indictment rules.
Does not refer to identity in case of identity. If Crow know them by
alias or other namo it is not necessary for them to be named in the
indictment. No prejudice whatever to Defence whether these ares were
added in or not.
Court: I do not think it necessary to amend the indictment again at
this stage for the reasons advanced by Ir. Sceats in his last address.
Even if it were held that the indictment were defective without allowing
for the amendment applied for, the indictment as it stands will not be
quashed for such defect and this trial will proceed as before.
Court adjourned to 10 a.m. on 20/11/75
(Sa.) A. Garcia District Judge
19.11.75
*